Diamond Intern. Corp. v. F. C. C., 79-1192
| Decision Date | 12 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-1192,79-1192 |
| Parties | DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and United States of America, Respondents, American Telephone and Telegraph Company et al., Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Keith Fagan, Counsel, F. C. C., Washington, D. C., with whom Robert R. Bruce, Gen. Counsel, Daniel M. Armstrong, Associate Gen. Counsel, John E. Ingle, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Roberta L. Cook, Counsel, F. C. C., Robert B. Nicholson and Margaret G. Halpern, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on brief, for respondents.
Alfred Winchell Whittaker, Washington, D. C., with whom Marian Jean Dabney was on brief, for intervenor.
Also Edgar Mayfield and Edmund B. Raftis, Bedminister, N. J., entered appearances for intervenor.
Before ROBINSON and MIKVA, Circuit Judges, and JUNE L. GREEN, * United States District Court Judge for the District of Columbia.
Opinion PER CURIAM:
Diamond International Corporation (Diamond) petitioned this court to review a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission which dismissed Diamond's complaint against the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) and its local subsidiary, New York Telephone Company (New York Tel.). Diamond Int'l Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel., 70 F.C.C.2d 656 (1979). At issue is the lawfulness of certain charges billed to Diamond, pursuant to a New York Tel. intrastate tariff, 1 arising from the installation of Diamond's interstate private line network.
Diamond maintains that the only appropriate charges are those set forth in AT& T's interstate private line Tariff FCC No. 260. Thus, Diamond argues that the charges under New York Tel.'s intrastate tariff constitute "double billing." Moreover, Diamond contends that the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-609, requires that the disputed charges be included in an interstate tariff, 47 U.S.C. § 203, and that the charges billed to Diamond are unreasonably discriminatory in violation of section 202(a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 202(a). 2 The Commission ruled that the services for which Diamond was charged were not included in AT&T's interstate tariff and were properly in New York Tel.'s intrastate tariff. We hold that the Commission acted within its statutory authority and that its conclusions were not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 3
Diamond's corporate headquarters in New York City has private branch exchange (PBX) service 4 furnished by New York Tel. In 1972, Diamond ordered a private telephone network, including twenty-two interstate private lines which were subsequently connected to Diamond's PBX switchboard in New York.
In its simplest form, an interstate private line network consists of two components an interstate transmission line and a station terminal capable of gaining access to the line and alerting the other end. The parties agree that AT&T Tariff FCC No. 260 covers this basic service in its entirety. In the instant case, Diamond ordered a more sophisticated system which has some dial signalling and switching capability. That additional capability enables a caller to ring a particular point on Diamond's network without ringing every other point on the circuit. In order to provide this feature, New York Tel. had to modify the PBX equipment in Diamond's headquarters. As a result, New York Tel. has imposed additional charges in its billings to Diamond for PBX service. Those charges are claimed by New York Tel. and AT&T to reflect the enhanced capability of Diamond's PBX in accordance with New York Tel.'s intrastate tariff.
Believing the additional charges to be unlawful, Diamond complained informally to the Commission. The Chief of the Commission's Tariffs Branch responded to Diamond in a letter, stating in relevant part:
Based on the information before us at this time, it is our view that the charges in dispute are charges for service associated with your company's Private Branch Exchange system (PBX) rather than your company's interstate channel network. As you know, charges for P.B.X. service are set forth in tariffs filed with the various state regulatory agencies and are not subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, we do not feel that we can pursue this matter further under our rules pertaining to informal complaints. Your company is entitled, however, to file a formal complaint with this Commission in order to determine the jurisdictional aspect of this matter or you may wish to pursue this matter with the New York Public Service Commission.
(Letter from Paul S. Darling to Richard L. Wagner (May 22, 1975), at J.A. 30)
Diamond chose to pursue its complaint first with the New York Public Service Commission (State Commission). Following an informal hearing, the State Commission's hearing officer concluded that the charges were appropriate and in accordance with New York Tel.'s intrastate tariff. The State Commission affirmed the hearing officer's conclusion.
On July 20, 1976, Diamond filed a formal complaint before the Federal Communications Commission, raising questions concerning the interpretation of AT&T Tariff FCC No. 260 and challenging the State Commission's jurisdiction to permit a tariff charge on equipment used to gain access to an interstate service. The Commission declared that "(s)ections 2.5 and 3.2.2(c)(3) of AT&T Tariff No. 260 clearly state that termination to a PBX at no additional charge is provided only when the PBX is not arranged for dial signalling." 5 70 F.C.C.2d at 658. Having determined that Diamond's PBX's had been altered to allow some dial signalling and switching capability, the Commission found that AT&T's interstate tariff did not include charges for the PBX modifications.
We find the Commission's reading of AT&T Tariff FCC No. 260 to be reasonable, based upon factors within the Commission's expertise, and thus, entitled to deference. See, e. g., Western Union Tel. Co. v. FCC, 541 F.2d 346, 351 (3rd Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1092, 97 S.Ct. 1104, 51 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977). Section 2.5 defines the terminal equipment offered by AT&T and section 3.2.2(c) (3) speaks of the charge for that equipment. Their terms explicitly limit the offering to terminal equipment which is "not arranged for dial signalling."
Diamond contends that the phrase "not arranged for dial signalling" in sections 2.5 and 3.2.2(c)(3) signifies that the customer must look to another section of the tariff for charges governing dial signalling. Diamond claims to find it in section 4.2.1 which offers an "arrangement to permit the transmission of dial or TOUCH-TONE signals, on a two-private line, between stations suitably equipped to transmit and/or receive dial or TOUCH-TONE signals." Pursuant to section 4.2.1, there is no charge for this arrangement when a customer orders what is referred to in the tariff as an "Interexchange Channel Switching Arrangement." 6 Since Diamond had obtained such Switching Arrangements for its private lines, it asserts that there should be no charge for dial signalling.
Besides adding its own gloss to sections 2.5 and 3.2.2(c)(3), Diamond overlooks the distinction drawn between the transmission line and the PBX terminal (station) within section 4.2.1. In essence, the provision offers the transmission of dial signals over the private line between stations suitably equipped for dial signalling. Diamond claims that the use of the word "arrangement" means whatever is necessary, thereby encompassing whatever is done to suitably equip the PBX station. However, it is no less reasonable to conclude, as the Commission apparently did within its technical expertise, that the "arrangement" in section 4.2.1 refers only to providing transmission lines that can carry the dial signals. It does not entail equipping the station terminals to transmit or receive those signals. Hence, the state tariff charges imposed for the modifications to Diamond's PBX do not duplicate charges under AT&T Tariff FCC No. 260.
Diamond further argues that even if the charges for its enhanced PBX equipment are not included in AT&T's interstate tariff, the Communications Act precludes New York Tel.'s state tariff charges for the modifications because the equipment involved is used to gain access to interstate service. We conclude that the Commission's determination that the charges are permissibly contained in the state tariff is consistent with the mandate of the Communications Act.
The Communications Act was designed to divide jurisdiction between the Federal Communications Commission and state agencies the former regulates interstate communications, 47 U.S.C. § 151, while the latter regulates intrastate communications, 47 U.S.C. §§ 152(b), 221(b). Conflicts in this regulatory scheme have arisen on occasion because interstate communications often utilize equipment, such as the PBX station terminals in this case, which necessarily serves both interstate and intrastate communications. See State of California v. FCC, 567 F.2d 84 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1010, 98 S.Ct. 721, 54 L.Ed.2d 753 (1978); North Carolina Utilities Comm'n. v. FCC, 552 F.2d 1036 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 874, 98 S.Ct. 222, 54 L.Ed.2d 154 (1977) ("NCUC II"); North Carolina Utilities Comm'n. v. FCC, 537 F.2d 787 (4th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1027, 97 S.Ct. 651, 50 L.Ed.2d 631 (1976) ("NCUC I"). Fundamental in the resolution of such conflicts is a tenet of administrative law that "an agency's construction of its enabling statute is entitled to deference from the courts." NCUC II, supra, 552 F.2d at 1049. The influence of this principle is especially applicable to the instant case where two regulatory agencies with overlapping jurisdiction have interpreted their responsibilities...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porr v. NYNEX Corp.
...operating within the State (see, e.g., Abraham v. New York Tel. Co., 85 Misc.2d 677, 680, 380 N.Y.S.2d 969; see also, Diamond Intern. Corp. v. F.C.C., 627 F.2d 489, 492). Characterized as "the alter ego of the Legislature" (Matter of Rochester Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Serv. Commn. of ......
-
Air Transport Ass'n of America v. Public Utilities Com'n of State of Cal.
...intrastate communications practices within meaning of section 152(b), section 202(a) inapplicable); Diamond Int'l Corp. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 489, 493 n. 7 (D.C.Cir.1980) (per curiam) (utility's rates for modification of Private Branch Exchange equipment subject to state regulation and not viola......
-
United States Telecom Ass'n v. F.C.C.
...save an unlawful subdelegation, see Stanton, 54 F.Supp.2d at 19, 20-21. Finally, the Commission's claim that Diamond International Corp. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 489, 492-93 (D.C.Cir.1980), and New York Telephone Co. v. FCC, 631 F.2d 1059, 1065 (2d Cir.1980), uphold "virtually indistinguishable" FC......
-
New York Tel. Co. v. F. C. C., ITT-D
...of its enabling statute, even if it is a changing one, is entitled to deference from the courts. Diamond International Corp. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 489, at 492-93 (D.C.Cir.1980). We believe that the general thrust of the statute and of the cases support FCC jurisdiction. The Act defines "wire com......
-
Federal preemption of state universal service regulations under the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
...1976). (42.) Id. at 793. Other cases illustrating the preemptive nature of the Communications Act of 1934 are Diamond Int'l Corp. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 489 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (upholding an FCC decision not to preempt state tariffs) and Computer & Comm. Industry Ass 'n v. FCC, 693 F.2d 198 (D.C......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 49, No. 35. August 31, 2019
...and the state action does not frustrate any important federal interest. See Louisiana PSC, 476 U.S. at 375; Diamond Int’l Corp. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 489, 493 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (permitting state regulation of mixed-use service within FCC’s authority); In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Ne......
-
Pennsylvania Bulletin, Vol 49, No. 09. March 2, 2019
...and the state action does not frustrate any important federal interest. See Louisiana PSC, 476 U.S. at 375; Diamond Int’l Corp. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 489, 493 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (permitting state regulation of mixed-use service within FCC’s thority); In the Matter of Filing and Review of Open Netw......